Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:14:32 -0600 (CST) From: Wes Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How to get portinstall to 'shut up' so I can run it in background Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.0.99999.0712042011350.37247@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.0.99999.0712041804070.36902@ync.qbhto.arg> References: <20071128013623.GA48799@belle.0lsen.net> <475488D8.2090301@FreeBSD.org> <20071203231312.GA1449@ted.stsp.lan> <alpine.BSF.0.99999.0712031734460.37247@ibyngvyr.purzvxnyf.bet> <alpine.BSF.0.99999.0712041804070.36902@ync.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Doug Barton wrote: > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Wes Morgan wrote: > >> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> >>> Screen also has log functionality. >>> Toggle with: Ctrl+A, then Shift+H >> >> You can also use "script" to capture the output fairly easily. > > So you have to use two different programs, one of which is a port, to > accomplish what nohup will do by itself. :) My point being that a lot of > people seem to think that screen(1) is the answer, no matter what the > question, when often simpler answers exist. > > If you're one of those people, that's fine, I learned a long time ago I'm not > going to change your mind. But I do think it's useful to note that there are > other valid solutions, even if simply for completeness sake. Actually, I was educated on "nohup", so don't consider it a total waste :). I just personally don't start a terminal without also running screen. However, nohup is in the base system, so it is clearly a more available solution.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.0.99999.0712042011350.37247>